Chris this makes alot of sense, and won't matter for people with super up-to-date, fast computers, but for the rest of us, the whole idea of releasing the Beta versions is lost on us because it is so painful to use that it is better to skip the experience - which deprives Adobe (at least from those of us with "slow" machines) of the feedback they wanted by releasing it in this form. Anyhow, so be it, they'll probably get enough feedback from those who can use it efficiently, and the rest of us will wait till we either have better computers or they have optimized the program.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No one doubts that LR is slow, but I think some of the RAW conversion are simply superior to ANY other contenders offered to date. That fact alone qualifies LR as now.

Instead of of us all lamenting about the speed, how well are your images being interpreted. LR has certainly, IMO, minimized additional time in PhotoShop. That says alot, even in LR's current state..

I just really think too many have focused on the one issue, which is a non-issue, because LR is doing what it is supposed to do - and it does lack a few things yet.... but I do not want this program to be another PhotoShop.

No one doubts that LR is slow, but I think some of the RAW conversion are simply superior to ANY other contenders offered to date. That fact alone qualifies LR as now.

Instead of of us all lamenting about the speed, how well are your images being interpreted. LR has certainly, IMO, minimized additional time in PhotoShop. That says alot, even in LR's current state..

I just really think too many have focused on the one issue, which is a non-issue, because LR is doing what it is supposed to do - and it does lack a few things yet.... but I do not want this program to be another PhotoShop. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James, there is slow and there is slow.........when I talk about slow I'm talking about a program almost grinding my machine to a stop. This is completely unworkable regardless of how good the program is. Anything you do in Lightroom can be done in Photoshop, and for experienced Photoshop users it remains to be seen whether one workflow will necessarily be more efficient than the other - much will depend on the user and the particularities of the image processing requirements. But I agree - from what I have seen, basically Lightroom is a very attractive package and should more efficiently address the processing requirements of a great many people and images.

James, there is slow and there is slow.........when I talk about slow I'm talking about a program almost grinding my machine to a stop. This is completely unworkable regardless of how good the program is. Anything you do in Lightroom can be done in Photoshop, and for experienced Photoshop users it remains to be seen whether one workflow will necessarily be more efficient than the other - much will depend on the user and the particularities of the image processing requirements. But I agree - from what I have seen, basically Lightroom is a very attractive package and should more efficiently address the processing requirements of a great many people and images.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm no apologist for LR--but hasn't it been stated pretty unequivocally (at least on the RSP/Pixmantic forums) that they know that LR is VERY slow and this will be addressed in future builds? Also--pointed out pretty strongly not to use it for crucial work at present. Personally, I have just imported some files to try it---and at that--have used the preference to reference them from present folders. I'm reserving judgement--I like the idea of a freestanding RC--but I am getting quite good conversions with LR.

I'm no apologist for LR--but hasn't it been stated pretty unequivocally (at least on the RSP/Pixmantic forums) that they know that LR is VERY slow and this will be addressed in future builds? Also--pointed out pretty strongly not to use it for crucial work at present. Personally, I have just imported some files to try it---and at that--have used the preference to reference them from present folders. I'm reserving judgement--I like the idea of a freestanding RC--but I am getting quite good conversions with LR.

Diane, just to be clear, no need to apologize for anything - two friends here in Toronto are using Lightroom for their final output and they are getting extremely good results with it. Both have totally up-to-date computers and they have not been troubled by the speed factor (or lack thereof).

No one doubts that LR is slow, but I think some of the RAW conversion are simply superior to ANY other contenders offered to date. That fact alone qualifies LR as now.

Instead of of us all lamenting about the speed, how well are your images being interpreted. LR has certainly, IMO, minimized additional time in PhotoShop. That says alot, even in LR's current state..

I just really think too many have focused on the one issue, which is a non-issue, because LR is doing what it is supposed to do - and it does lack a few things yet.... but I do not want this program to be another PhotoShop. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi James,

You have a valid point about the converter (it is good and I think will get better). The speed issue is central to the beta testing experience and is definitly not a "non-issue". A program that is unusable because of unacceptable response times (as preceived by some users) is a program that will not be tested by some people and that is a loss for the Beta Program.

I think there are actually 2 "speed issues": one for MACs and another for PCs. I have no experience with the MAC beta but I have been led to believe in the Adobe forums the PC version is slower and therefore less usable than the MAC version which has been in development longer and may have received some speed "tweeks" during the 3 beta releases. The PC version is much more of a "catch-up" release and really runs like a dog at the moment and is way to slow even on a good PC. I use a new Dell 9400 Dual Core 2.16GHz (2Gb RAM) and I could never consider using LR at the moment for serious work, simply because the program response is too slow. The issue for MAC users is (maybe, and this is just my opinion) more of a normal: "it's a beta what do you expect" issue and as has been hinted at will get the real optimization just prior to v1.0.

I have seen hints on the forums that Adobe are working on the issue for PC (and MAC) and because of that I would not be surprised if we saw some sort of improvement with the next beta release.

Is there anyone here who has used both the PC and MAC versions and able to compare on the relative speed of each with similar equipment? Or, is there a member of the Adobe LR team reading these posts that could comment on the speed difference (if there is indeed one and it is not just a myth) between MAC and PC? Is the PC version noticably slower than the MAC?

At the moment I will stick with ACR for working on images and I fiddle around with LR for testing.

I have every confidence that Adobe will get this issue ironed-out for v1.0 and then I can use it properly :-)

Here we have pre-alpa/alpha software and Adobe has stated numerous times that the speed will improve as the program develops and is optimized. I wonder what people hope to accomplish by complaining incessantly about its speed?

Before anyone continues with how awful it is using LR due to it's performance issues, ask yourself this: Would you rather the engineers at Adobe spend their time continuously optimizing and re-optimizing unfinished code or would you rather them actually finish the product?

Here we have pre-alpa/alpha software and Adobe has stated numerous times that the speed will improve as the program develops and is optimized. I wonder what people hope to accomplish by complaining incessantly about its speed?

Before anyone continues with how awful it is using LR due to it's performance issues, ask yourself this: Would you rather the engineers at Adobe spend their time continuously optimizing and re-optimizing unfinished code or would you rather them actually finish the product?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Daniel, setting aside rhetoric and hypothetical choices, the fact "from the trenches" is - that for me (recognizing each person's mileage and tether varies) - it is completely impractical to use this program with Pentium 4, 2.3 Ghz and 1.536 GB of RDRAM. So until that situation changes (new computer or speed-optimized program) I'm using ACR+PSCS2, which functions tolerably on this computer. The more people who have this problem, the less beta-testing feedback Adobe will get, but as I said above, it probably doesn't matter for Adobe, because there are most likely enough people who can use LR satisfactorily and give them all the feedback they need. Amen.

Here we have pre-alpa/alpha software and Adobe has stated numerous times that the speed will improve as the program develops and is optimized. I wonder what people hope to accomplish by complaining incessantly about its speed?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of the problems Adobe (and others) face in providing public beta's (LR is actually a public Alpha) to everyone and anyone who has NO experience in beta testing and "don't get it" is this kind of chatter.

I've been a beta tester for Photoshop since 2.0 and more recently an alpha tester not to mention a ton of other beta experience. You learn early on that speed optimization is pretty much the LAST task before a product goes golden master. If the beta is too slow, or if you're worried that prerelease software could hose your files, you shouldn't be working with the product(s)!

Anyone with beta experience will tell you, you don't do it for a free copy of the software (unless you are willing to bill yourself out for $1 an hour). You do it because you want to see a better product or (in the case of any Alpha or in this case LR) you want to have your feedback heard and maybe (maybe!) implemented. I also love to find a good, hard to find bug and file a report (others prefer to find needles in haystacks). Beta testing isn't for everyone. Apparently a lot of people are discovering this. They should move on.

Here we have pre-alpa/alpha software and Adobe has stated numerous times that the speed will improve as the program develops and is optimized. I wonder what people hope to accomplish by complaining incessantly about its speed?

Before anyone continues with how awful it is using LR due to it's performance issues, ask yourself this: Would you rather the engineers at Adobe spend their time continuously optimizing and re-optimizing unfinished code or would you rather them actually finish the product?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you responding to my post? If so which specific part(s) are you objecting to? I thought it was quite balanced and optimistic ...

Beta testing isn't for everyone. Apparently a lot of people are discovering this. They should move on.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, and that is what I've done in this case, because I have no choice right now. We are each capable of making rational choices about whether to test or not to test based on our own technical circumstances. And I don't feel the least bit "inexperienced" as a consequence.